Originally Posted by
Sink r8
Fail. There is no reason this discussion needs to get into compare/contrast with another codeshare. I can only guess at Slow's intention in bringing up AE, but it strikes me as the first step in establishing the notion that if we have/had a codeshare that endures/endured, and if there is no difference with the RAH codeshare, then wouldn't precedent suggest the RAH agreement is also OK?
If nothing else, you're now set up to argue two different points with Slow.
I honestly don't know whether the RAH code violates our scope clause or not, but I'd like that case to be judged on its' own merits.
I agree, but slowplay's point is not without some merit.
There are concepts in the law known as "equitable estoppel" or "laches" or various others that make it much more difficult for a party to assert a legal position, whether in court or in a grievance proceeding, if they have allowed similar contract violations in the past and done nothing about it. Its similar to a statute of limitations. We have allowed this violation for so long that its too late to bring it up now since people have come to "rely" on ALPA not enforcing that section of our contract.
I don't think that would preclude a challenge to RAH since they just recently changed the situation with their purchase of Frontier and Midwest but its undoubtedly a point that they would bring up in defense.
The NMB ruling, when it comes out, that says RAH is a single carrier and their single seniority list, etc etc.. all are important differences from Eagle as well.
I think its worth a grievance. The MEC disagrees. They have their reasons.
We're still theoretically doing "constructive engagement". Playing nice, etc. etc.
And ALPA National won't support any scope battles for the usual reasons.